The battle for universal healthcare is not over. This is not because of the reason you might suspect  that Republicans will obstinately endeavor to obstruct Obamacare in every way they can (though that seems to be the case). Instead, even after the smoke clears from the government shutdown (presumably with the law intact), the battle over universal healthcare will still not be over, but for a more fundamental reason: Obamacare, whatever its advantages (and despite the rights worst fears), does not create a system of universal healthcare.

Now first, to be clear, this is not to say that Obamas Affordable Care Act wont help many people. The uninsured who become eligible for coverage through the expansion of Medicaid, for example, will of course be better off  assuming they dont live in one of the 20 or more states that have callously elected to deny them this potentially lifesaving opportunity. Additionally, many uninsured who were previously unable to afford private health insurance may now be able to do so, for instance through the new income-based premium subsidies. And most of us will benefit from many of the laws insurance reforms, like the one that prevents insurers from denying us coverage because we are sick.

And at the same time, have no doubt: The various Republican alternatives for American healthcare would be disastrous. Consider the most recent GOP healthcare proposal H.R. 3121, which would gut state insurance regulations, eliminate popular ACA reforms like the ban on preexisting conditions, end the Medicaid expansion, and provide tax benefits that would preferentially benefit the wealthy, among other unhelpful proposals that would do nothing to help the uninsured. Conservative consumer-driven healthcare dreams, more generally, would in truth be nightmares, radically furthering the transformation of healthcare into yet another commodity....

Supposedly that’s a hoax, but it sure sounds like him. I did find this:

EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information:

In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individuals status as a
member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian,
or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.

Senate Bill, H.R. 3590, pages 273-274

Now what’s curious about this tidy little insertion is that it’s primarily designed for religious groups such as the Amish. But add a wrinkle here — for Muslims, modern health care systems are a bit more akin to “gambling” — which is haram or forbidden in Islam. Liberty and Pride explains:

There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions. Muslims believe that health insurance is haraam, or forbidden; because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Other excluded groups include Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists.

What’s fascinating about this is while Christian business owners and organizations — most notably the Catholic Church, Domino’s Pizza, and Hobby Lobby — are fighting for their very lives resisting the violations of religious conscience in Obamacare, apparently Islam got a free pass.

Most on the Right are not against ZeroCare because of some esoteric "universality". It's because it isn't about healthcare at all, it's about control over people's lives and control over the economy. End of story.

13
posted on 10/12/2013 5:59:40 PM PDT
by jeffc
(The U.S. media are our enemy)

A few things that the Salon article got wrong. The policies on the Obamacare exchanges are not cheaper in most cases, even with the subsidies and there are huge deductibles that young healthy insureds will never reach unless they suffer some type of catastrophic event.

Then is states that have agreed to expand medicaid coverage to people up to $60,000/year, the insurance companies offering policies on the exchange are very few because all those young healthy potential insurers will be not be buying policies because they will be on medicaid. I read that in one of the most populous counties in AZ, there was only one company offering coverage and it was very expensive.

Third, the most egregious problem with Obamacare is the rationing board that dictates what services you will receive, not what services will be covered, but what services your doctors will offer. This means that it is the doctors who will ration the care, not the insurance companies. You can have the best insurance coverage in the country, but if your doctors sign on the Obamacare guidelines, you won’t receive any better treatment or more thorough testing than people on medicaid, no matter how much you pay.

Obama is to healthcare what Stalin was to Ukrainian agriculture. The idea is that the system is perfect but the people are flawed. While millions starved in the Ukraine, Stalin believed it was because they were resisting change or were just counter-revolutionary. Regardless of how much damage and pain Obamacare inflicts in terms of job loss, increased costs and degradation of services, fault in the fundamental plan will never be considered.

This figure is projected to rise in the near future by about another 1% due to the populations aging and a further 3% due to the growing incidence of chronic illnesses. Anticipated increases would raise the nations healthcare costs to an unsustainable 22% of GDP, crowding out spending for other goods and services. By contrast, the Netherlands spends 12% of its GDP on healthcare; Switzerland, Germany, France, and Canada about 11%; New Zealand 10%; Sweden 9.4%; and the United Kingdom 9.3%. As we travel through these countries, there is frequently a clear, if anecdotal, perception that people are healthier than in the US.

And the data backs up that perception. The US spends more money on healthcare because we are in fact far less healthy on average than the rest of the developed world. This difference is in large part due to poor lifestyle choices, but the good news is there are programs that have clearly and conclusively demonstrated that this difference is reversible. Changing behavior, while it will be difficult, can result in significant cost savings. In fact, changing behavior may allow us to spend more on education, social programs, and even defense. http://www.mauldineconomics.com/editorial/thoughts-from-the-frontline-the-road-to-a-new-medical-order

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.